IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Claim Received - Which Case Law
geordiebill
Posts: 15 Forumite
Hello!
I've just received the standard claim from Gladstone's for parking in a car park managed by UK CPM.
The issue is about my workplace car park - a shared commercial car park - that is free to use for commercial tenants. The PCN was issued through the post on the basis of failure to display a permit. The T&Cs on the signs state that a permit is required, but the day-to-day reality is very different. Commercial tenants do not need to display a permit.
I have an email from the building management company that was sent out to commercial tenants (including our facilities manager, who has passed it on to me) that explicitly puts this in writing: "I am pleased to inform you that the car park management company will no longer be policing the commercial bays and so any car that is parked in a commercial bay will not be ticketed". This means that there is a long-established understanding that I can enter the car park and use it without a permit - contrary to what is on the signs. As I've never been issued with a permit - and it's understood that I don't need one - it's actually impossible for me to enter into the contract they're offering! I pointed this out to UK CPM but of course they ignored it.
On top of this, there are numerous problems with the signage. Among others, the sign at the sole entrance to the car park doesn't even belong to UK CPM, but the previous PPC! The UK CPM signs indicate they're members of the BPA but they weren't at the time, they were with IPC. And that's before we get onto the wording. All of this is documented with lots of of photographs of the site.
Having read around - newbie thread etc - I'm comfortable with the procedure, but would love it if I somebody could point me at the specific case law to cite in this case. Am I dealing with unfair terms, failure to perform contract? I could do with my focus narrowing too when it comes to the defence as there are plenty of things wrong but I could really use a pointer on which to attack.
I have all documentation. Many thanks in advance.
GB
I've just received the standard claim from Gladstone's for parking in a car park managed by UK CPM.
The issue is about my workplace car park - a shared commercial car park - that is free to use for commercial tenants. The PCN was issued through the post on the basis of failure to display a permit. The T&Cs on the signs state that a permit is required, but the day-to-day reality is very different. Commercial tenants do not need to display a permit.
I have an email from the building management company that was sent out to commercial tenants (including our facilities manager, who has passed it on to me) that explicitly puts this in writing: "I am pleased to inform you that the car park management company will no longer be policing the commercial bays and so any car that is parked in a commercial bay will not be ticketed". This means that there is a long-established understanding that I can enter the car park and use it without a permit - contrary to what is on the signs. As I've never been issued with a permit - and it's understood that I don't need one - it's actually impossible for me to enter into the contract they're offering! I pointed this out to UK CPM but of course they ignored it.
On top of this, there are numerous problems with the signage. Among others, the sign at the sole entrance to the car park doesn't even belong to UK CPM, but the previous PPC! The UK CPM signs indicate they're members of the BPA but they weren't at the time, they were with IPC. And that's before we get onto the wording. All of this is documented with lots of of photographs of the site.
Having read around - newbie thread etc - I'm comfortable with the procedure, but would love it if I somebody could point me at the specific case law to cite in this case. Am I dealing with unfair terms, failure to perform contract? I could do with my focus narrowing too when it comes to the defence as there are plenty of things wrong but I could really use a pointer on which to attack.
I have all documentation. Many thanks in advance.
GB
0
Comments
-
geordiebill wrote: »Having read around - newbie thread etc - I'm comfortable with the procedure, but would love it if I somebody could point me at the specific case law to cite in this case. Am I dealing with unfair terms, failure to perform contract? I could do with my focus narrowing too when it comes to the defence as there are plenty of things wrong but I could really use a pointer on which to attack.
It's nothing to do with unfair terms or frustration of contract.
These circumstances fall under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In other words, since the management company informed commercial tenants that they would not be enforcing parking restrictions in commercial bays, they (or their agents UK CPM) are estopped from reneging on that promise.
The seminal case on this (one of Lord Denning's, always good to cite) is Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 (Google it to see why it applies).
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
It's nothing to do with unfair terms or frustration of contract.
These circumstances fall under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In other words, since the management company informed commercial tenants that they would not be enforcing parking restrictions in commercial bays, they (or their agents UK CPM) are estopped from reneging on that promise.
The seminal case on this (one of Lord Denning's, always good to cite) is Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 (Google it to see why it applies).
This is a massive help, thank you! You learn something new every day.
Would you be able to answer me a quick question via PM please? There's a small bit of detail to add, but I'm not sure how wise it would be to post it on the board, as I know there are prying eyes!0 -
geordiebill wrote: »Would you be able to answer me a quick question via PM please?
My inbox is deliberately full, otherwise I get about a million people a day wanting me to write their defence for them.
I wouldn't worry about 'prying eyes', once your defence goes to the court, the other side will get a copy anyway.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
My inbox is deliberately full, otherwise I get about a million people a day wanting me to write their defence for them.
I wouldn't worry about 'prying eyes', once your defence goes to the court, the other side will get a copy anyway.
Ha, yeah, fair point on both of these. I appreciate you much be busy to say the least!
It was just a small detail I wanted to double check, but it's all good. I'll get cracking.
A follow up question: would the promissory estoppel angle still be applicable if the vehicle wasn't parked in a commercial bay? The car park is gated and only authorised users can access it. The signage only has two terms of parking:
- Permits must be clearly displayed in windscreen at all times
- No parking outside of a designated area / parking bay
The court papers don't specify which T&Cs have been allegedly broken, but their documentation only states "parking without permit". In essence, I entered the car park knowing I didn't require a permit to park, parked in good faith, but received a PCN for failure to display a permit.0 -
The court papers don't specify which T&Cs have been allegedly broken, but their documentation only states "parking without permit".
What do the particulars of claim actually state? What is the issue date on the court papers?0 -
What do the particulars of claim actually state? What is the issue date on the court papers?
Issue date is 4 Oct.
Particulars state: "The driver of the vehicle XXXXXX incurred the parking charge(s) on XX/XX/XX for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXXXXX. The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is is the Keeper of the Vehicle. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £XX pursuit to S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgment at £0.04 per day.0 -
geordiebill wrote: »A follow up question: would the promissory estoppel angle still be applicable if the vehicle wasn't parked in a commercial bay? The car park is gated and only authorised users can access it. The signage only has two terms of parking:
- Permits must be clearly displayed in windscreen at all times
- No parking outside of a designated area / parking bay
The court papers don't specify which T&Cs have been allegedly broken, but their documentation only states "parking without permit". In essence, I entered the car park knowing I didn't require a permit to park, parked in good faith, but received a PCN for failure to display a permit.
The promissory estoppel point only applies to commercial bays, if that is what the letter from the management company says.
But if the signage at the entrance is in the name of a different parking operator, that introduces an element of uncertainty as to who the driver is contracting with. Under the doctrine of contra proferentem, or alternatively Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the consumer.
Then you have the point that only authorised users can access the car park, which you must have been, otherwise you couldn't have got in there in the first place. A similar case I was involved in, was decided in favour of the motorist, details here: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/ukpc-lose-claim-employee-entitled-to.html
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
geordiebill wrote: »
Would you be able to answer me a quick question via PM please?
Soliciting contact off-board is not on. Also, it's a clear breach of the T&Cs you agreed to on signup.
Be aware that certain posters here have been singled out for harassment by PPCs and their stooges, so it's better that all posts are kept out there where they can be seen/monitored
If anyone now does Pm you with "advice", you need to be very careful - only respond to Forum regulars with thousands of posts to their names as PPCs do trawl this board to try and identity and put one-over on their victims.0 -
Soliciting contact off-board is not on. Also, it's a clear breach of the T&Cs you agreed to on signup.
Be aware that certain posters here have been singled out for harassment by PPCs and their stooges, so it's better that all posts are kept out there where they can be seen/monitored
If anyone now does Pm you with "advice", you need to be very careful - only respond to Forum regulars with thousands of posts to their names as PPCs do trawl this board to try and identity and put one-over on their victims.
Huge apologies to all. Newbie error! I was simply trying to be cautious precisely because I know he PPCs lurk. I've had a bit more time to look around the site this afternoon and am up to speed on etiquette. Duly noted re advice!
Again, thank you again to all who've taken the time to steer me in the right direction, it's really appreciated.0 -
The promissory estoppel point only applies to commercial bays, if that is what the letter from the management company says.
But if the signage at the entrance is in the name of a different parking operator, that introduces an element of uncertainty as to who the driver is contracting with. Under the doctrine of contra proferentem, or alternatively Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the consumer.
Then you have the point that only authorised users can access the car park, which you must have been, otherwise you couldn't have got in there in the first place. A similar case I was involved in, was decided in favour of the motorist, details here:
Thanks. Would the wording of the signs assist with the issue of authorised users? In full:
PRIVATE PROPERTY
Enforcement in operation 24hrs. Unauthorised parking may result in your vehicle receiving a parking charge notice. The following restrictions apply.
Permits must be clearly displayed in windscreen at all times. No parking outside of a designated area/parking bay.
Terms of Parking Without Permission
You do so at your own risk to property and personal injury and you are contractually agreeing to pay a parking charge fee.
The Following Fees Apply
Parking Charge Notice.........£100 Per Day
or the reduced sum of £60 if payment is made within 14 days.
Registered Keeper details may be requested from DVLA. You will incur additional charges resulting from further action being taken against you if the fee remains unpaid.
(Incidentally, the signs show BPA membership, but they weren't members at the time. They were members of IPC)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards